Using Dragon instead of Orion

[Jestersage]

So US had downscale from Constellation program to SLS-Orion; news on the net indicate it may ended up being scrapped altogether, and instead will go with strictly private-public partnership (unless Orion becomes purely under lockheed)

While CST-100 is gonna be okay for its mission (LEO mission), can either Blue Origin or Dragon V2 does what Orion was planned for? Forget about asteroid capture or Mars; I will just say go back to the moon. Or do you guys think the chinese are more likely to get to the moon before US goes back?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Jestersage

[Scotius]

No. Currently Orion is the only long range spaceship in development. Other capsules simply do not have endurance to carry their crew far. Their life support systems are meant for 2-3 days of operations in LEO.

[Jestersage]

47 minutes ago, Scotius said:

No. Currently Orion is the only long range spaceship in development. Other capsules simply do not have endurance to carry their crew far. Their life support systems are meant for 2-3 days of operations in LEO.

In laymen's term, US won't be going back to Moon then if they do cut Orion..

[tater]

The duration of Orion is fin for cislunar stuff, but it's rather a lot like living in a bathroom with 3 other people (and it's still a bathroom for all 4).

Duration of either of the commercial crew vehicles can be easily increased, particularly CST-100.

I don't think SLS is going anyplace, honestly.

[magnemoe]

Redundancy of life support is also critical on orion unlike dragon as it can not do an deorbit burn, it also have better shielding against radiation.
Add better heat-shield and communication as we know from KSP. 

Now you could make an deep space version of dragon but that is another story 

[kunok]

The shape of the dragon limits its capability of reentering too, is after all a LEO capsule

[Nibb31]

Oh, and if all that wasn't enough, Dragon doesn't have EVA capability. It also relies on GPS for navigation and TDRSS for comms, which makes it incapable of going beyond LEO.

Sure, you could add all that BEO capability, but it would require a redesign of pretty much every onboard system. You'd be better off starting from scratch.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Nibb31

[DDE]

12 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You'd be better off starting from scratch.

I wonder if, without the pork-spreading, this will turn out to be cheaper than using Orion in the midterm...

6 hours ago, tater said:

The duration of Orion is fin for cislunar stuff, but it's rather a lot like living in a bathroom with 3 other people (and it's still a bathroom for all 4).

We still don't know how the Lunar mission stack will look. They could go the way of PTK-Z.

[_Augustus_]

I think, based on what they've said and on info from sites like Spaceflight Insider, that the new administration will not be scrapping SLS and Orion. They will repurpose them for more Moon landings and probably bring back LSAM and Altair.

[YNM]

So, Mars will stay as a scam too expensive and too far away to be done ? Even with all the "clear oil" ? And that (as of now) source of global warming (news and reality) ?

[Kryten]

14 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

I think, based on what they've said and on info from sites like Spaceflight Insider, that the new administration will not be scrapping SLS and Orion. They will repurpose them for more Moon landings and probably bring back LSAM and Altair.

Altair is not coming back. Far too expensive.

[_Augustus_]

24 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Altair is not coming back. Far too expensive.

There will be some sort of lunar lander. As I said, maybe something smaller like the original LSAM from the early 2000s.

[tater]

CST-100 would have been Orion had they won the bid, so altering that is trivial.

[Kryten]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

CST-100 would have been Orion had they won the bid, so altering that is trivial.

There's not likely to have been much commonality between CST-100 and Boeing CEV capsule except capsule shape and diameter; there was a four year gap betweeen CEV selection and CST-100 reveal, they didn't spend it sitting on their hands. Boeing CEV had a soyuz-style orbital module and giant methalox SM that would need to be developed, and it would need addition of thickened heatshield, BEO comms gear, et.c. et.c. None of this would be trivial.

[Wjolcz]

Well, tbh I don't really understand the notion of going back to the Moon. A lot of probes went there and even humans have done so. I mean, a proper base would be something, but I think Mars should be the priority. And unless the SLS is repurposed, Elon will get there first.

I don't really think this whole ARM program is worth it. It's a waste of money since OSIRIS-REX is going to visit one anyway.

I know real life is not KSP, but if I had a powerful rocket like that I would use it for a station building, Mars base building or a human-rated ferry.

[Nibb31]

Personally, I'd rather see us actually achieving something that is affordable and sustainable, rather than chasing dreams of Mars that will always be 30 years away.

[Motokid600]

29 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Personally, I'd rather see us actually achieving something that is affordable and sustainable.

Same here. To an extent. What did you have in mind when you say affordable and sustainable? Just curious. Surly a destination must be picked at some point in time. Whats the point of space flight if not to explore?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Motokid600

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Personally, I'd rather see us actually achieving something that is affordable and sustainable, rather than chasing dreams of Mars that will always be 30 years away.

I'm also curious what you mean by "affordable" and "sustainable"? Another space station in LEO? A Moon base?

IMO landing an ISRU rig or a base piece on Mars is better than nothing. Otherwise Mars will always be 30 years away.

Oh, and I retract my statement. One of the payloads is  Europa Clipper orbiter+lander. SLS is actually pretty cool.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Veeltch

[Shania_L]

18 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Or do you guys think the chinese are more likely to get to the moon before US goes back?

Everybody seems to have missed this part of the OP, so I'll aim my reply here.

China is going to the Moon, and eventually Mars, why? because they do not have to pander to commercial or popularist opinions. China wants to go, so China goes. What you can also gaurentee however is that as soon as there is any physical proof of China doing this then it suddenly becomes a political priority for the US to wave its wang again and NASA will get Apollo level funding to ensure they win the 'race'.

Until then NASA will retain its role as unofficial aerospace industry subsidy distributor, nothing more nothing less.

[kerbiloid]

Orion with attached spherical toilet from Soyuz and Dragon as a stylish playroom - and you need nothing more to send a pack of nerds to Mars.

[Nibb31]

8 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

Same here. To an extent. What did you have in mind when you say affordable and sustainable? 

The Moon is much more affordable. I would like to see a small outpost on the rim of Shackleton crater.

[Jestersage]

29 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

The Moon is much more affordable. I would like to see a small outpost on the rim of Shackleton crater.

Except based on the general concensus of this thread, even Dragon V2 can't serve as a Orbiting CSM for a lunar landing mission. It may function as a lander, but you still need the CSM for the return trip

[Nefrums]

8 hours ago, Shania_L said:

Everybody seems to have missed this part of the OP, so I'll aim my reply here.

China is going to the Moon, and eventually Mars, why? because they do not have to pander to commercial or popularist opinions. China wants to go, so China goes. What you can also gaurentee however is that as soon as there is any physical proof of China doing this then it suddenly becomes a political priority for the US to wave its wang again and NASA will get Apollo level funding to ensure they win the 'race'.

Until then NASA will retain its role as unofficial aerospace industry subsidy distributor, nothing more nothing less.

China is following their CLEP plan.  And are in the last stage of the unmanned part. 

They have sent landers/rovers and tested reentry.  Next step (planed next year) is a apolo style sample return mission (still unmanned) called Chang'e 5.

Their plan includes maned moon missions in 2025-2030.

Nasa will not get there before then, but spaceX or Blue origin might.

 

[kerbiloid]

40 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

It may function as a lander

As a half-lander. Afaik, its delta-V is 400-600 m/s, while just orbital speed is 1620 m/s.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Jestersage said:

Except based on the general concensus of this thread, even Dragon V2 can't serve as a Orbiting CSM for a lunar landing mission. It may function as a lander, but you still need the CSM for the return trip

Who was talking about Dragon?

I was speaking in general terms of what we should be focusing on. NASA should be focusing on goals that are achievable rather than pipe dreams that are based on budgets that will never materialize. The actual hardware should be designed around these goals instead of endlessly repurposing heritage stuff.